cyclists 1:0 polish government

[HeartfeltDawn]

See here for more on this argument[/URL].

I would strongly recommend that everyone should at least try not to fall

From that link you provide, it mentions risk compensation:

"Another possibility concerns so-called 'risk compensation' - the tendency or willingness of people to take greater risks when they feel better protected. There is clear evidence of this, particularly amongst children, and it is quite likely to be a subconscious reaction. If people take greater risks (such as riding in places requiring a higher level of skill) due to a misplaced belief that their helmet makes them safer, they could be more likely to experience a crash."

Couldn't one also say that this also applies to car drivers in their airbagged hyper-protected metla wagons o'death, and that therefore the cyclist might be at increased risk due to driver 'risk compensation'? That's before you get into the realm of in-car entertainment and effin' mobile phones further giving the driver less reason to concentrate.

I wouldn't want a compulsory helmet law. I wear mine because I like my head being protected. I had to see brain injuries in the worst way when a drunk driver hit a friend and I when we were out walking some years ago, and left my friend brain damaged and crippled. His head got mashed and so I like to protect my head whether it's out cycling or wearing a lid when batting

 

[alicat]

That's great news, Borsuk.

I wear a helmet most of the time but not when going on local trips on my shopper bike. I never wear hi-hiz because I am not a hazard.

Helmets and hi-viz may have the positive effect of preventing or minimising the effect of collisions with the ground or motor vehicles but imho making them compulsory has a far greater negative effect of discouraging cycling generally with all the health benefits it brings. I hope the nanny state never gets that far in the UK because it would definitely put me off cycling!

 

[HJ]

Argument?

You could have ten science degrees mate, but it still wouldn't change my mind. Where did I actually say I would have died anyway? Look, the fact is this: If I was going to have that (exact) same accident again on my way home tonight I would rather wear a helmet. It might not be required to actually save my life but it would stop my head from scraping along the road. (which is what happened to me before) For £30 that seems like a pretty good deal to me!

I am not trying to stop you, it is your money spend it how you like...

My point is that it not might not be as good an investment as you think.

i don't wear a helmet or high-viz, though i have strips on my coat and lights. i do wear a helmet when i'm out with the kids because i insist they wear one, children being (a) more likely to fall ( less likely to catch themselves properly when they do fall and (c) much more susceptible to minor bangs on the head than adults.

If you do insist on kid wearing helmets have a read of this, it is worth thinking about as well. The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Now I have just got to go and bring peace to the Middle East

 

[sunnyjim]

Well when I signed up I promised myself I definitely wouldn't get involved in pointless helmet wars, but what the hell.

The expanded polystyrene pudding basin commonly sold as a cycle helmet, however flimsy, does afford some protection against some injuries in some circumstances. However, if I really thought I was going to come off at any sort of speed, I'd want a proper full face motor-bike type helmet, and quite possibly a leather suit.

So, rather than argue about wear it-don't wear it, a more worthwhile discussion might be how much protection a helmet - when worn -should actually provide if it's to be anything more than a lucky charm for the purchaser or marketing opportunity for the seller?

 

[HJ]

I think there is another issue here. If the Goverment were to pass a law that says that cyclists must wear hivis and helmets then this would raise the awareness of cycling ten fold. Isn't that what most cyclists want? The profile and awareness of cyclists in this country raised?!?

Most serious cyclists wear hivis and helmets anyway, would also make non-serious cyclists such as those that ride on the pavement look at themselves and try to improve the way they cycle for the greater good of the cycling community.

?? Most cyclist I see riding on the pavement ARE wearing helmets!

Just look at the evidence from Denmark, it has the greatest proportion of active cyclist in Europe, also a place there very few cyclist wear helmets. So it is an obvious target for the helmet industry, a campaign started to encourage helmet usage. No compulsion, just advertising. Result, a 30% drop in cycle usage, a 200% increase in children being driven to school and a 5% drop in bicycle sales at a time when bicycle sales are booming in ever other county in the EU!

So how does a law promoting the use of helmets raise the awareness of cycling ten fold? It is was such a good idea, why is it that ever national cycling organization in Europe (with one acceptation) opposes it? Why is it that world wide, everywhere such laws have been tried, the number of cyclist on the road has dropped?

If you really want to raise the profile and awareness of cyclists in this country, why not campaign for better training of cyclist? This would increase road safety and help to improve behaviour, among the ignorant minority which give us all a bad name.

 

[4F]

Why mention Denmark?

It will raise awareness because every cyclist will have to wear a helmet and a hivis vest, think of a learner driver with L plates-you see the L plates and you think learner and you will see the helmet and hivis and think cyclist.

Better road safety is as well as cycle training, wearing a helmet and hivis to protect your head and to be seen.

Those that wouldn't want to wear a helmet are not allowed on the road, therefore if you are serious about cycling you have to buy a helmet and a hivis vest.

Come on lee, you are going to have to try harder than that

 

[snorri]

Most serious cyclists wear hivis and helmets anyway

Yes this is true, helmet wearers seldom crack jokes or give a friendly wave as they pass.

 

[MartinC]

There should be a compromise on this. On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays helmets and hi-vis should be compulsory. On Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays they shouldn't be allowed at all. On alternate Sundays helmets will be compulsory but hi-vis not allowed and vice versa on the intervening Sundays. Thus will have the benefit of making sure that everybody in the country with an uninformed and irrational prejudice will get the chance to compel cyclists to do something.

 

[Banjo]

I usually wear a helmet and Hi Vis anyway on roads but much prefer to do this voluntarilly.Glad the campaign was successful.